Questions regarding GWML Padd-Reading and Crossrail Farringdon

[edwin_m]

The advantages I mention still apply during the peak. If intercity services are too full up east of Reading then they should be longer or more frequent.

No, the answer should be to provide capacity where it is needed, not over a much longer journey where most of it will be wasted.

The alternative to an HST for Reading-London journeys today is a slow and short 165/166. It is suggested above that a 110mph EMU service, continuing to Oxford or Newbury, would almost match HST/SET timings. It would also probably be an efficient means of maintaining through services and providing enough capacity, since commuters from Oxford/Newbury to Reading would leave spaces for others between Reading and London.

Then the longer-distance trains could be made pick-up and set-down at Reading and this would actually be enforced by high profile revenue blocks with offenders being charged the full fare to/from the next stop west of Reading plus a penalty fare. Thus connections at Reading would still be possible even in peak hours (just not on intercity trains to/from Paddington), longer-distance passengers would not be crowded out by commuters, and maybe the seating layout could even made more suitable for longer journeys...

 

[JonathanH]

No, the answer should be to provide capacity where it is needed, not over a much longer journey where most of it will be wasted.

The alternative to an HST for Reading-London journeys today is a slow and short 165/166. It is suggested above that a 110mph EMU service, continuing to Oxford or Newbury, would almost match HST/SET timings. It would also probably be an efficient means of maintaining through services and providing enough capacity, since commuters from Oxford/Newbury to Reading would leave spaces for others between Reading and London.

Then the longer-distance trains could be made pick-up and set-down at Reading and this would actually be enforced by high profile revenue blocks with offenders being charged the full fare to/from the next stop west of Reading plus a penalty fare. Thus connections at Reading would still be possible even in peak hours (just not on intercity trains to/from Paddington), longer-distance passengers would not be crowded out by commuters, and maybe the seating layout could even made more suitable for longer journeys...

Isn't the penalty fare the greater of twice the single fare to the next station and £20. Therefore, something like £124 between Paddington and Swindon?

How much does a Penalty Fare cost?
The penalty is £20 or twice the full single fare from the station where the passenger got on the train to the next station at which the train stops, whichever is the greater.

How often is that form of penalty fare actually charged?

 

[coppercapped]

No, the answer should be to provide capacity where it is needed, not over a much longer journey where most of it will be wasted.

The alternative to an HST for Reading-London journeys today is a slow and short 165/166. It is suggested above that a 110mph EMU service, continuing to Oxford or Newbury, would almost match HST/SET timings. It would also probably be an efficient means of maintaining through services and providing enough capacity, since commuters from Oxford/Newbury to Reading would leave spaces for others between Reading and London.

Then the longer-distance trains could be made pick-up and set-down at Reading and this would actually be enforced by high profile revenue blocks with offenders being charged the full fare to/from the next stop west of Reading plus a penalty fare. Thus connections at Reading would still be possible even in peak hours (just not on intercity trains to/from Paddington), longer-distance passengers would not be crowded out by commuters, and maybe the seating layout could even made more suitable for longer journeys...

When Gerry Fiennes was General Manager of the Western Region it was reported that he came up with cunning plan(TM) to stop people travelling from London from using one of the late afternoon West of England expresses which called at Reading to pick-up only. Many people however continued to use it to get to Reading so he arranged a train to start from Reading which then made all the usual stops as did the train starting from Paddington, except that this one didn't stop at Reading...

After a week of people having to pay the excess from Reading to the next stop - Taunton - the word got round...

 

[Radedamer]

All these cunning plans to keep people off trains make me despair. Why not try to cater for capacity? Yes, I know there isn't enough rolling stock because there isn't the budget to buy it and even if there were enough trains there wouldn't be the paths for them because there isn't the infrastructure because there's no budget for it, but surely railways should at least hope to provide journeys for everyone who wants travel? Contrast this with 'predict and provide' policy on road building!

 

[LexyBoy]

Well, I think there's something to be said for both sides. Some of the suggestions for stopping "commuters" from using up capacity "meant" for long distance travellers (who may well be commuters themselves) do come across as rather vitriolic. It is a valid point though that diagramming services on the basis of loadings for only a small fraction* of their journey is wasteful.

With increased total capacity from IEP plus fast Oxford/Swindon/Newbury EMUs, I think/hope that the crowding on long-distance services will be lessened. Passengers will have the option of quieter trains. Carrots rather than sticks.

* Remember that not all IEP destinations are that far though - for a Bristol train London-Reading is around a third and London-Didcot half of the whole journey. If fewer seats are needed without the Thames Valley traffic, this could translate as shorter trains which are more economical to run - or less frequent services.

Isn't the penalty fare the greater of twice the single fare to the next station and £20. Therefore, something like £124 between Paddington and Swindon?

They can't charge a PF for Paddington-Swindon, it could only be an Anytime Single (still eye-watering enough to put anyone off). GWR operate three PF zones which are independent - i.e. a PF can only be imposed for a journey between two stations in the same zone. This is due to safeguards in the scheme designed to prevent long-distance passengers being subject to Penalty Fares (on the basis that adequate ticket checking is possible on these services, unlike locals).

EMT, on the other hand, do I belive dish out such PFs, although even there the full single is more usual I think. They should never have got away with making their main line a PFZ, but did so by implementing it before gaining proper approval (IIRC).

BTW it's the greater of twice the Anytime (Day) Single from passenger's origin to the next station, or £20.

 

[JamesRowden]

No, the answer should be to provide capacity where it is needed, not over a much longer journey where most of it will be wasted.

The alternative to an HST for Reading-London journeys today is a slow and short 165/166. It is suggested above that a 110mph EMU service, continuing to Oxford or Newbury, would almost match HST/SET timings. It would also probably be an efficient means of maintaining through services and providing enough capacity, since commuters from Oxford/Newbury to Reading would leave spaces for others between Reading and London.

Then the longer-distance trains could be made pick-up and set-down at Reading and this would actually be enforced by high profile revenue blocks with offenders being charged the full fare to/from the next stop west of Reading plus a penalty fare. Thus connections at Reading would still be possible even in peak hours (just not on intercity trains to/from Paddington), longer-distance passengers would not be crowded out by commuters, and maybe the seating layout could even made more suitable for longer journeys...

Longer distance services being pick-up and set-down only at Reading would make them busier west of Reading (where infrastructually there are less capacity problems) than east of Reading, reduce the frequency of intercity services, reduce the frequency of service between Reading and Paddington and would subsequently mean that more trains would need to run between Reading and London in order to provide the same level of capacity as allowing Reading to London travellers to use the longer distance trains.

Perhaps the inbound moring peak fast service pattern at Reading could be:

1. Long distance Intercity service which doesn't call at Reading
2. Fast Thames Valley service
3. Additional shorter distance Intercity/FastThamesValley service which calls at Reading and connects earlier with preceeding non-stop service and originates from a different route
4. Long distance Intercity service which calls at Reading
5. Long distance Intercity service which doesn't call at Reading
6. Fast Thames Valley service
7. Additional shorter distance Intercity/FastThamesValley service which calls at Reading and connects earlier with preceeding non-stop service and originates from a different route
8. Long distance Intercity service which calls at Reading

More Fast Thames Valley fast services could be added to the pattern.

The pattern inserts Thames Valley services in the largest gap between Reading to Paddington services. Data can be given to the commuters as to how busy each train is likely to be so that they can make an informed decision when picking their train. The non-stop intercity services could be tactically timed relative to the intercity services which call at Reading to balance the demand upon the two.

 

[Taunton]

I can't understand how 110 mph trains can be bought for Oxford etc services when the prevailing speed of what is on the main lines is 125 mph. This must surely consume at least one, if not more, path between Paddington and Reading, and a second path onward to Didcot, where they are likely to get slowed waiting to cross over to the Oxford avoiding line with a 125 mph service which has caught up to the block behind delayed as well. Why were 125 mph electric units not specified?

Part of the crowding problem of expresses to Reading is that, once upon a time, services would be opened at Paddington well before time and people for Bristol, Cardiff (or Taunton!) would be able to take their seats. Not long before departure this would become the next service to Reading and passengers for there would start to fill in the remaining places. Nowadays, with the seeming policy that services from Paddington are not allowed to be announced more than 10 minutes before departure (sometimes not even that), the train to any distant point is also the next train to Reading. Yes, many are those, especially us business travellers who pay the highest fares, who can find that they then have to stand out to Reading, where the train empties out notably.

 

[JamesRowden]

I can't understand how 110 mph trains can be bought for Oxford etc services when the prevailing speed of what is on the main lines is 125 mph. This must surely consume at least one, if not more, path between Paddington and Reading, and a second path onward to Didcot, where they are likely to get slowed waiting to cross over to the Oxford avoiding line with a 125 mph service which has caught up to the block behind delayed as well. Why were 125 mph electric units not specified?

When the signalling between Paddington and Reading is upgraded to allow 20tph on the fast lines rather than the present 15tph, there will still be 100mph Heathrow Express services operating. A Heathrow Express service could be pathed between a class 800/801 service and a class 387 service, so allowing the space left/required for the Heathow Express service to be contracted/expanded between Reading and Airport Junction.

Part of the crowding problem of expresses to Reading is that, once upon a time, services would be opened at Paddington well before time and people for Bristol, Cardiff (or Taunton!) would be able to take their seats. Not long before departure this would become the next service to Reading and passengers for there would start to fill in the remaining places. Nowadays, with the seeming policy that services from Paddington are not allowed to be announced more than 10 minutes before departure (sometimes not even that), the train to any distant point is also the next train to Reading. Yes, many are those, especially us business travellers who pay the highest fares, who can find that they then have to stand out to Reading, where the train empties out notably.

The fast line service between Reading and Airport Junction should increase from 11tph to 16tph once the signalling is upgraded and the line is electrified. This combined with longer trains should remove the crowding problem for a period of time. The Western Route Study stated that 24tph on the fast lines out of Paddington should be possible.

 

[edwin_m]

All these cunning plans to keep people off trains make me despair. Why not try to cater for capacity? Yes, I know there isn't enough rolling stock because there isn't the budget to buy it and even if there were enough trains there wouldn't be the paths for them because there isn't the infrastructure because there's no budget for it, but surely railways should at least hope to provide journeys for everyone who wants travel? Contrast this with 'predict and provide' policy on road building!

The whole point is to provide appropriate capacity. Preventing longer-distance passengers getting a seat because the train is full of commuters isn't encouraging rail travel, and nor is providing an interior is really cramped simply because it is full on a quarter or less of its journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't understand how 110 mph trains can be bought for Oxford etc services when the prevailing speed of what is on the main lines is 125 mph. This must surely consume at least one, if not more, path between Paddington and Reading, and a second path onward to Didcot, where they are likely to get slowed waiting to cross over to the Oxford avoiding line with a 125 mph service which has caught up to the block behind delayed as well. Why were 125 mph electric units not specified?

The traditional answer would be that the better acceleration of the EMU allows for a similar journey time to the Intercity train. However I'm not sure that's true any more, given the huge number of motored axles under a SET and the consequent high acceleration. The answer now is probably that a 125mph EMU needs to meet an extra set of standards which make it more expensive and probably reduce its capacity as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, I think there's something to be said for both sides. Some of the suggestions for stopping "commuters" from using up capacity "meant" for long distance travellers (who may well be commuters themselves) do come across as rather vitriolic. It is a valid point though that diagramming services on the basis of loadings for only a small fraction* of their journey is wasteful.

With increased total capacity from IEP plus fast Oxford/Swindon/Newbury EMUs, I think/hope that the crowding on long-distance services will be lessened. Passengers will have the option of quieter trains. Carrots rather than sticks.

* Remember that not all IEP destinations are that far though - for a Bristol train London-Reading is around a third and London-Didcot half of the whole journey. If fewer seats are needed without the Thames Valley traffic, this could translate as shorter trains which are more economical to run - or less frequent services.

Good summary. It would be good if they introduced the fast EMUs and only brought the "stick" measures in if there was still a crowding issue. There is a third choice for the footnote though, similar frequency and length of trains but with a lower-density seating layout which should encourage more business and leisure travellers off the M4.

GWR operate three PF zones which are independent - i.e. a PF can only be imposed for a journey between two stations in the same zone. This is due to safeguards in the scheme designed to prevent long-distance passengers being subject to Penalty Fares (on the basis that adequate ticket checking is possible on these services, unlike locals).

I daresay that rule could be changed in the next franchise if there was a good enough reason.

 

[Hartington]

I'm getting confused (not difficult!).

The discussion here seems to revolve around 100/110/125 mph trains yet this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83452 keeps talking up the idea that the overhead will be 140mph capable and there seems to be a view that, in due course, that speed increase will be used.

What effect (if any) does the use of the 140mph capability have on capacity? Or is the view here that trains won't be scheduled at 140mph but will be able to use it in case of late running?

 

[Tio Terry]

I'm getting confused (not difficult!).

The discussion here seems to revolve around 100/110/125 mph trains yet this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83452 keeps talking up the idea that the overhead will be 140mph capable and there seems to be a view that, in due course, that speed increase will be used.

What effect (if any) does the use of the 140mph capability have on capacity? Or is the view here that trains won't be scheduled at 140mph but will be able to use it in case of late running?

When ERTMS/ETCS is provided then the linespeed - subject to track restrictions - can be raised to 145mph. There are also improvements available from this form of signalling that will allow trains to travel closer together so allowing more trains to pass over a line in a given period. So, more trains travelling at a higher speed means more seats available.

 

[Radedamer]

The whole point is to provide appropriate capacity. Preventing longer-distance passengers getting a seat because the train is full of commuters isn't encouraging rail travel, and nor is providing an interior is really cramped simply because it is full on a quarter or less of its journey.

I agree. But my point was more, simply, that railways should at least dream big.

 

[D1009]

I'm getting confused (not difficult!).

The discussion here seems to revolve around 100/110/125 mph trains yet this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83452 keeps talking up the idea that the overhead will be 140mph capable and there seems to be a view that, in due course, that speed increase will be used.

What effect (if any) does the use of the 140mph capability have on capacity? Or is the view here that trains won't be scheduled at 140mph but will be able to use it in case of late running?

To be honest, as far as the GW route is concerned, the centres of population are closer together compared with the ECML or the WCML, so more of the trains stop at intermediate stations. If you up the maximum speed to 140 it means that the relative time penalty for each stop is increased, which means capacity is reduced if you want to take full advantage of the higher speed for the longer non stop runs, if that makes sense. Even with 125 running I'd be surprised if many of the proposed non stops to Bristol Parkway get there without seeing adverse signal aspects. For this reason I don't see 140 mph as a priority on the GW.

 

[Class 170101]

Remind me again, how many Crossrail services will there be to Reading each hour? Will that number make a significant difference?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe its only two Crossrail services per hour off peak. One additional train was ordered when services were confirmed as extending from Maidenhead to Reading.

Agree entirely. I have never understood the allegedly widespread demands for the extension past Maidenhead. But it doesn't alter the general view that they are pretty much unsuitable for going the full distance to Oxford.

Reading is a destination in its own right particularly with leisure opportunities as well as technology jobs there. Interchange facilities into mainline services will still be available here even despite the DfT's best efforts to reduce Reading's mainline services.

I understand that when the class 387s are transferred to GWR, the third rail equipment will be removed. Is that sensible? (Southampton to Pad anyone?).

Maybe via Heathrow Western Access in future? Even if direct would it quicker via Paddington and Reading rather than via Waterloo?